The Carbon Flame War
Display Avatars Sort By:
Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: paranoid on 09/22/2012 15:32:49 MDT Print View

Dan says:
Well, at least you pointing out that you were not really answering me directly but just copying at me from your website about the CO2 and H2O vapor frees me from the paranoid level. Your answer was not considerate.

What?

I spent 20 minutes or so typing up that reply to you Dan, and I challenge you to find it anywhere on my website.

Tom: I'm sure you're right but I'm interested in working out how the Earth's climate really works. It sure as s.h!t doesn't run on CO2.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
CO2 and water Vapor........ on 09/23/2012 12:05:36 MDT Print View

Here it is Rog. The issue is why you said to me that CO2 and water vapor do not create energy - you got it from here;

A simple logical argument about global warmingPosted: September 21, 2012 by tallbloke in climate, Clouds
45Skeptic commenter Jimbo provides a neat summary of the AGW argument:

Co2 is a greenhouse gas.

The world has warmed.

Man’s co2 has had a part in that warming.

But hang on a minute Jimbo:

The ocean heat content rose
The surface air temperature rose (UHI caveat on amount)
The troposphere temp rose

and

Outgoing longwave radiation increased.



CO2 and water vapour can’t create energy.

Therefore extra energy entered the system from outside via diminished cloud cover.


Posted because Rog said,

" What?

I spent 20 minutes or so typing up that reply to you Dan, and I challenge you to find it anywhere on my website. "

Edited by wildlife on 09/23/2012 12:10:26 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Lost the plot. on 09/23/2012 12:52:37 MDT Print View

It's clear to me you haven't read or thought about actual climate science. You just pick up and regurgitate talking points from alarmist blogs and repeat the same inaccuracies, mis-comprehensions and confusions they do. Then, rather than admit you haven't understood something, ask for a clarification, and ask for further assistance if needed, you create a diversion such as making a false accusation. You've done it several times recently, and you never come up with anything to support it, but just create further confusion to kick dirt over your tracks.

Here's the sequence. You asked:

I have question for you. At what point does shortwave become longwave? I mean why wouldn't shortwave interaction with areosals create what would be apparent longwave emitting from the planets surface? Surely these particles heat up at some level and emit longwave that could be mistaken for earth-born longwave when they are strictly from the atmosphere. The point here being that if that's the case they could show a false increase. That was where I was going with my previous post.

Edited by wildlife on 09/22/2012 01:00:07 MDT.


And I replied:

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke)
Re: OK Rog on 09/22/2012 03:01:06 MDT

The boundary between 'short wave' and 'long wave' is actually an overlap in terms of what it means for the climate system. This is because Approximately 16% of incoming solar 'shortwave' is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapour and the radiatively active trace gases such as co2 and ozone and methane. Also, aerosols of various types absorb solar energy directly, or reflect it.

There's very little water vapour and co2 in the stratosphere, where ozone absorbs strongly and actually causes the stratospheric temperature to rise with altitude, whereas temperature falls from the ground to the top of the troposphere where it meets the stratosphere. The rate it falls at is called the environmental lapse rate, and is around 6.5K per Km on average. If there was no moisture in the air, it would fall at around 9.8K/Km. This is called the dry adiabatic lapse rate, and it is determined by the equation

-Γ≡ dT/dz = -g/Cp

where g is gravity and Cp is the heat capacity at constant pressure. dT/dz is just the differentiation of delta Temperature divided by delta altitude in the units K(degrees Kelvin)/Km(kilometers).

The AGW theory is that adding more co2 will increase the heat capacity of the atmosphere (because it absorbs radiation), and so raise the 'effective altitude of emission'. This in effect enlarges the troposphere, and so when the lapse rate is back calculated from the Top of Atmosphere (TOA) to the surface, the temperature has to be larger than before.

But this relies on the assumption that 'everything else remains equal', and we don't know that's so. The Earth does not absorb or radiate long wave as a perfect 'black body' according to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, because it presents a hemispheric surface to the incoming solar radiation, and is covered in a fluid (the oceans) which are shifting heat from the equator towards the poles. The rate and efficiency with which that happens depends on cloud cover and many other variables, and so there are multiple ways in which the emission of long wave back to space can vary, apart from a change in average surface temperature. This is summed up by an effect known as Holder's Inequality - the way heat is spread out.

So, for example, one of the ways Earth reacts to a change in the incoming solar energy is to alter the latitudinal position of the jet streams, which in turn alters cloud distribution.

The modelers try to reduce all this complexity by considering the measured radiation at various latitudes. And this tends to lead them to think in terms of changes in the TOA radiation as the driver of the system. But this is a mistake, because the main driver of the shifting of energy from equator to poles is not radiation, but the latent heat of vapourisation and condensation of water, and the convection which carries the water vapour up from the tropical ocean, and the currents which move warm water polewards under cloud which is changed by the SST (Sea surface temperature), but also changes the SST. All these things interact to affect each other, and it's fiendishly complicated to tease out the cause and effect. It's better to consider it as an interacting set of cybernetic feedback loops.

Here's a quote from the general circulation course at Chicago university:

"Considering the energy balance of the atmosphere-ocean system, the variation with
latitude of the long-term average net radiation at the top of the atmosphere implies energy
transports inside the system. These transports are produced by the circulations of both the
atmosphere and the oceans, and we can regard the general circulations of the atmosphere and
oceans as a “response”(for the purpose of modeling) to this pattern of net radiation. An important point, however, is that the
distributions of the albedo and the outgoing longwave radiation are determined in part by the
motion field (convection dominated general circulation). It is thus a drastic oversimplification to regard these fields as simple forcing
functions; they are bound up with the circulation itself."
http://kiwi.atmos.colostate.edu/group/dave/at605pdf/Chapter_2.pdf

My parentheses.

And then you make this false accusation:

dan mchale
paranoid on 09/22/2012 12:19:38 MDT
Well, at least you pointing out that you were not really answering me directly but just copying at me from your website about the CO2 and H2O vapor frees me from the paranoid level. Your answer was not considerate.


What I have done twice is take long answers I've given here, and turned them into posts for my blog afterwards. But I have never fobbed you off with a cut'n'paste from my blog to here.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
BPL is Rog's main blog site now on 09/23/2012 13:18:28 MDT Print View

Rog, the inconsiderate part was you saying, supposedly to me, that CO2 and water vapor do not create energy. I went back to that after you did not really accept my apology. It appears that you are the one that is confused. I can't blame you for not being able to keep up with your own stuff.

So this is the home of your blogs now! Ryan Jordan I'm sure likes hearing that!
This is the home of your blogs and you can't even cough up $25.00 to be a member? Shame on you Roger Tattersall! You think you are getting more hiys here than at your own site?

Rog, I was aware of the dating and checked that before I posted but I figured since the response appears to be for 'Jimbo' I figured the dating excuse does not fly.

But let's try to get back on track OK? You said, " Tom: I'm sure you're right but I'm interested in working out how the Earth's climate really works. It sure as s.h!t doesn't run on CO2. "

There you go again pointing out the obvious, this time to Tom. Of course the climate system does not 'run on Co2'. You have pointed out that CO2 does have a 'secondary' effect after the systems that do run the climate. Like I said earlier in a post, guys that come in second are usually not slouches. Secondary gives CO2 a prime spot as far as many of us are concerned.

And, when I ask you a question, it is usually for rhetorical purposes to move the conversation along. You however, like to think people ask things because they are dumb asses, as your arrogance demands. Think of me as a prosecutor when I ask you a question and please try to stick to the point.

To help people find you here, I'll put in come key words; Roger Tattersall loves BPL and wants to move here. Here, people can learn important concepts like; CO2 and water vapor do not create energy, and CO2 does NOT run the climate system. Roger, that would save you some money moving here - not having to maintain a site of your own.

Edited by wildlife on 09/23/2012 13:40:24 MDT.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Time out on 09/23/2012 13:36:13 MDT Print View

I'll reply when you've stopped editing your comment. Tuesday maybe.

For now I'll just point out that I've been participating in this thread since 2008, over a year before I started my own website, and you are a johnny come lately in the debate.

Edit to add:

Dan says:
Think of me as a prosecutor when I ask you a question and please try to stick to the point.

Ah. Aha. Ahahahahahaha!

Lol.

Thanks Dan, best laugh all evening.

Edited by tallbloke on 09/23/2012 13:41:33 MDT.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
Johnny boy on 09/23/2012 13:43:11 MDT Print View

Rog actually said, " For now I'll just point out that I've been participating in this thread since 2008, over a year before I started my own website, and you are a johnny come lately in the debate. "

That's really significant Rog, that you were here first..... Got any other words of wisdom? That naturally makes all of your arguments spot on. Have a good day mate - I really DO have better things happening.

Glad I could make YOU laugh, seems like things have been a little lopsided around here.

Edited by wildlife on 09/23/2012 13:45:35 MDT.

Jason Elsworth
(jephoto) - M

Locale: New Zealand
The difference between how skeptics and realists see global warming on 10/16/2012 15:25:32 MDT Print View

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/SkepticsvRealistsv3.gif

It changes over a few seconds, so you need to leave it on screen for a bit.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
Just leaving this here on 10/16/2012 16:42:09 MDT Print View

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Just leaving this here on 10/19/2012 13:52:39 MDT Print View

The most revealing comment in that Daily Mail article is this quote from prof. Phil Jones, the head of the Climatic Research unit at the University of East Anglia - Climategate Central.

"We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it. You could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing."

This from the guy who admitted he doesn't know how to perform a regression analysis in Microsoft Excel.

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: The difference between how skeptics and realists see global warming on 10/20/2012 07:34:01 MDT Print View

Well maybe this is how the propagandists at SKS would like to charicature the way skeptics look at data, but one of the things we've been repeatedly pointing out is that it is very very stupid to start graphs in 1970 at the beginning of a warming cycle, and then claim

"ITS UNPRECEDENTED, WE'RE ALL GONNA FRY"

When in fact it's just the warming half of oceanic cycles which have been going on for thousands of years against the backdrop of longer term warming/cooling cycles which take place every ~208 and ~970 year (to mention just a couple of the cycles found in nature).

And all those are against a backdrop of gradual cooling since the peak of warmth 8000 years ago at the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

.holocene temps

So recently I made a simple model to demonstrate that natural variation plus a little bit of co2 (around 0.5C per doubling) can successfully reconstruct variation in sea surface temperature since 1876 to a high correlation value of R^2=0.874 for monthly data.

Here's the result, and a link to the full size graphs for those interested. The upper pane shows the constituent forcings and the lower one the model you get when you add them together, against the historical sea surface temperature record.

.sst-model

http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/sst-model1.png

The prediction tacked on the end out to 2050 is provisional, but is within the limits of uncertainty, and shows that nothing too alarming is likely to happen.

Diplomatic Mike
(MikefaeDundee)

Locale: Under a bush in Scotland
Lack of data on 10/20/2012 09:03:12 MDT Print View

So it's all the fault of neolithic man?
The recent 'Global warming' scare is simply down to a lack of measuring equipment thousands of years ago. :-)

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Lack of data on 10/20/2012 09:10:08 MDT Print View

Hi Mike.
I think it's more down to a lack of common sense at the modern end of the data record really. ;-)

Judging by the way the scientists I met at the Royal Society conference on uncertainty in weather and climate prediction, who actually deal with the data and models, are starting to back away from the IPCC position, it may be that the lesson nature is currently teaching is starting to sink in though.

Terry Trimble
(socal-nomad) - F

Locale: North San Diego county
Why did the great Carbon flame war start up again. on 10/20/2012 12:19:36 MDT Print View

Why did you guys start the flame war up again. I thought it was over.

Let's admit one thing the earth is going through a cycle in time when Glacier melt and some countries go under water and temperatures rise. Humans and some species of animals,fish avian die off.
We are witnessing it first hand but since the great industrial age we have caused the process to accelerate faster than normal also cause erratic weather changes world wide.

Mankind has no one to blame but it self for the acceleration we will not see a change in our life time but are children's children will see it. Because of our efforts of inventing new ways and uses of sustainable energy and storage and transportation. Also forcing other countries to use these technologies and ween the world off of fossil fuel.
Terry

Rog Tallbloke
(tallbloke) - F

Locale: DON'T LOOK DOWN!!
Re: Why did the great Carbon flame war start up again. on 10/20/2012 13:34:59 MDT Print View

Hi Terry,

Why did you guys start the flame war up again. I thought it was over.

While the energy poor are dying of cold in my country, there will be no truce. An estimated 17,000 last year. That's culpable homicide on a large scale IMO.

Let's admit one thing the earth is going through a cycle in time when Glacier melt and some countries go under water and temperatures rise. Humans and some species of animals,fish avian die off.

The total sea level rise since the satellite altimetry started in 1992 is 60mm according to the Colorado Edu data. The error on measurement is +/- 75mm. The rise rate has slowed down since 2003. No countries will be 'going underwater' anytime soon.

We are witnessing it first hand but since the great industrial age we have caused the process to accelerate faster than normal also cause erratic weather changes world wide.

Even the editorial team of Nature science journal have admitted there is no credible evidence of a link between increased co2, higher temperature and more extreme weather events.

Mankind has no one to blame but it self for the acceleration

The warming of the C20th stopped accelerating in 1997, since when temperatures levelled off.

Because of our efforts of inventing new ways and uses of sustainable energy and storage and transportation. Also forcing other countries to use these technologies and ween the world off of fossil fuel.
Terry


Sooner the better for me, but lets do it for the right reasons, rather than slaying science to save the face of politicians.

Michael L
(mpl_35) - MLife

Locale: The Palouse
force on 10/20/2012 15:13:26 MDT Print View

I love it. How are you proposing we "force" other countries to do this Terry?

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Why did the great Carbon flame war start up again. on 10/20/2012 20:00:31 MDT Print View

Hi Rog

> Even the editorial team of Nature science journal have admitted there is no credible
> evidence of a link between increased co2, higher temperature and more extreme weather events.

Hum - reference please? (I don't have a subscription to Nature.)

Cheers

Edited by rcaffin on 10/22/2012 15:20:36 MDT.

Roger Caffin
(rcaffin) - BPL Staff - MLife

Locale: Wollemi & Kosciusko NPs, Europe
Re: Re: Re: Why did the great Carbon flame war start up again. on 10/22/2012 15:24:07 MDT Print View

Test posting. Checking visibility.

Cheers

Miguel Arboleda
(butuki) - MLife

Locale: Kanto Plain, Japan
Re: force on 10/22/2012 16:53:49 MDT Print View

Also forcing other countries to use these technologies and ween the world off of fossil fuel.

That's interesting. Considering that the "we" you are implying are the worst offenders of the use of all the culprit problems, "forcing" anyone to do anything is the height of hypocrisy and arrogance.

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
oxygen on 10/27/2012 11:49:34 MDT Print View

I've been thinking about the stories I have seen about oxygen depletion in the atmosphere so here is something about it.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

dan mchale
(wildlife) - MLife

Locale: Cascadia
Dan and Ryan make the big time on 10/30/2012 11:39:20 MDT Print View

I'm glad I have been able to direct the content on Rog's website - this from Rog's Tallbloke Speaks site;

"More alarmism: this time its dropping oxygen levelsPosted: October 28, 2012 by tallbloke in alarmism, atmosphere, Measurement, Natural Variation
16Over on the Carbon Flame war (which I hope to be contributing to again as soon as Ryan fixes the software), Doom-laden Dan Mchale links to a post on a climate alarmist site calling itself ISIS – the Institute of Science in Society. ISIS is actually the name of a history of science journal which has been in existence for a very long time.

Since its inception in 1912, Isis has featured scholarly articles, research notes and commentary on the history of science, medicine, and technology, and their cultural influences. Review essays and book reviews on new publications in the field are also included. An official publication of the History of Science Society, this is the oldest (and most widely circulating) English-language journal in the field.
But it seems the acronym has been hijacked by climate alarmists trying to give themselves credibility by using the name of this long established and venerable journal. Here’s a bit of the page Desperate Dan linked to:

Read the rest of this entry » "

Maybe Rog could talk (at his own site that is, because he can't afford the $25.00 to flog his wares at BPL) about the the Oxygen depletion in terms of how we have burned so much fossil fuels that we have actually made a measureable dent in oxygen levels in the atmosphere. Apparently oxygen levels are reduced in the oceans as well. It's interesting that by just posting information somebody becomes an alarmist. In Rog's world in might be better to sweep info under the rug. I thought the article was interesting from the standpoint of countering those people that say Humans are too puny to affect anything. I have no allegience to that particulat article - there are many like it. Look at Rog's website - the impression I get is that anyone that questions the effect humans are having on the planet is a laughable person, especially when the all-knowing light of Roger Tattersall is shined on them.

Edited by wildlife on 10/30/2012 11:44:03 MDT.